Safety and Immunogenicity of Measles Vaccination in HIV-Infected and HIV-Exposed Uninfected Children: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

listen audio

Study Justification:
This study aimed to evaluate the safety and immunogenicity of measles vaccination in HIV-infected and HIV-exposed uninfected (HEU) children. The justification for this study is that HIV-infected and HEU children have an increased risk of measles, potentially due to altered immune responses or suboptimal timing of vaccination. Understanding the safety and effectiveness of measles vaccination in these populations is crucial for developing appropriate vaccination strategies.
Highlights:
– The study included 71 studies with a total of 15,363 children.
– Vaccine-associated adverse events and deaths were uncommon.
– HIV-infected children had lower seroresponse rates after primary vaccination compared to HIV-unexposed and HEU children.
– Antiretroviral therapy and time interval between vaccination and serology mitigated the lower seroresponse rates in HIV-infected children.
– HEU and HIV-unexposed children had similar seroresponse rates.
– Vaccination at 6 months of age resulted in similar seroresponse rates in HIV-infected children compared to HIV-unexposed and HEU children.
Recommendations:
– Primary measles vaccination at 6 months of age may provide protection against measles during early infancy in settings with a high prevalence of maternal HIV infection.
– Further studies are needed to evaluate the effectiveness of this vaccination strategy in HEU children and HIV-infected children receiving antiretroviral therapy.
Key Role Players:
– Researchers and scientists specializing in HIV, immunology, and vaccine development.
– Healthcare professionals and pediatricians who work with HIV-infected and HEU children.
– Public health officials and policymakers responsible for immunization programs.
– Non-governmental organizations and community health workers involved in HIV and immunization initiatives.
Cost Items for Planning Recommendations:
– Research funding for conducting further studies to evaluate the effectiveness of primary measles vaccination at 6 months of age in HEU children and HIV-infected children receiving antiretroviral therapy.
– Funding for vaccine procurement and distribution to ensure access to measles vaccination for HIV-infected and HEU children.
– Training and capacity building for healthcare professionals and community health workers to implement and monitor vaccination strategies for these populations.
– Monitoring and surveillance systems to track immunization coverage and adverse events following vaccination.
– Public awareness campaigns and educational materials to promote the importance of measles vaccination in HIV-infected and HEU children.

Background: HIV-infected and HIV-exposed uninfected (HEU) children have an increased risk of measles that may be due to altered immune responses or suboptimal timing of measles vaccination. We aimed to evaluate the safety and immunogenicity of measles vaccination in HIV-infected and HEU children. Methods: For this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, Global Health Library and IndMED on May 9, 2018. Studies were included if they reported on safety or seroresponse (either seroprotection/seropositivity/seroconversion) after measles vaccination in HIV-infected or HEU children. We calculated pooled estimates to compare immunogenicity outcomes between HIV-infected, HEU and HIV-unexposed children, using risk ratios [RRs] (with 95%CIs). PROSPERO registration number: CRD42017057411. Findings: Seventy-one studies met the inclusion criteria (15,363 children). Twenty-eight studies reported on safety; vaccine-associated adverse events and deaths were uncommon. Sixty-two studies reported on immunogenicity, 27 were included in the meta-analysis. HIV-infected children had lower seroresponse rates after primary vaccination compared with HIV-unexposed (RR 0.74; 95%CI: 0.61–0.90, I2 = 85.9%) and HEU children (0.78; 0.69–0.88, I2 = 77.1%), which was mitigated by antiretroviral therapy and time interval between vaccination and serology. HEU and HIV-unexposed children had similar seroresponses. Vaccination at 6-months resulted in similar proportions of HIV-infected children having seroresponse compared with HIV-unexposed (0.96; 0.77–1.19) and HEU children (1.00; 0.73–1.37, I2 = 63.7%). Interpretation: Primary measles vaccination at 6-months of age may provide protection against measles during early infancy in settings with high prevalence of maternal HIV-infection, however, further studies are needed to evaluate this strategy in HEU children and HIV-infected children receiving antiretroviral therapy. Funding: South African Research Chairs Initiative of the Department of Science and Technology and National Research Foundation in Vaccine Preventable Diseases; Medical Research Council: Respiratory and Meningeal Pathogens Research Unit.

This systematic review and meta-analysis adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines [27]. We searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Global Health Library (including African Index Medicus, Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences), and IndMED on 9 May 2018, for articles containing (“measles” and “vaccine”) and “HIV” (Supplementary data 1). Additional studies were identified by searching reference lists of the articles included in full-text screening and ClinicalTrials.gov. Studies were eligible for inclusion in the systematic review if they reported on immunogenicity or safety of any measles vaccination strategy in HIV-infected or HEU children aged 0–18 years. For inclusion in the immunogenicity meta-analysis, studies needed to report on primary or booster vaccination and had to include a comparator group of either HIV-uninfected children (HEU/HIV-unexposed) or HIV-infected children on a different antiretroviral therapy (ART) regimen. No restrictions regarding geographical region or year of publication were applied. Eligible study designs were interventional or observational. For assessment of safety, case reports were also included. Animal studies, systematic reviews, narrative reviews, reports of proceedings and publications not written in English, French, German, Spanish, Portuguese or Dutch were excluded. The outcomes of interest were immunogenicity and safety. Immunogenicity: studies were included if data were reported as proportions of subjects with seroprotective (≥ 330 mIU/mL or as indicated by authors), seropositive, or seroconversion (4-fold rise in titre or change from seronegative to seropositive) measles antibody responses. A composite outcome for seroresponse was created using seroprotection rates post-vaccination, and if not available, seropositivity or seroconversion rates were considered. Safety: all reported safety outcomes post-vaccination were considered, including deaths, severe adverse events (SAEs) other than death and adverse events (AEs). Two independent reviewers (EM, MvR) screened titles and abstracts of identified studies. Articles were retained if they met the inclusion criteria according to one or both of the reviewers. In case of duplicate publications of the same results, the most complete reference was included. Data were extracted from manuscripts using a standardised data extraction form (Supplementary data 2) and authors were contacted in case of missing data. Data of interest included: study design, study population, vaccine type, age at vaccination, time-period between vaccination and measurement of the serological response, number of vaccine doses administered, use of ART, outcome measures, laboratory methods used to detect measles antibodies, serological cut-off values, proportions with seroresponse, and number and type of (S)AEs. The Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool was adapted to enable evaluation of observational studies (Supplementary data 3) [28]. For five categories, risk of bias was assessed as low (= 0), unclear (= 1), or high (= 2). Studies with a high summative risk of bias score (≥ 7) were excluded from meta-analysis. When multiple time-points were reported for immune responses after the same vaccine dose, the time-point closest to vaccination was reported, except for two studies that had a smaller sample size at the earlier time-point [29], [30]. For the descriptive analyses, point estimates of the proportion of seroresponders for the individual studies under each group were calculated with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) assuming an exact binomial distribution. Three different primary meta-analyses compared serological responses in HIV-infected vs. HIV-unexposed, HIV-infected vs. HEU and HEU vs. HIV-unexposed children using risk ratios (RRs) and 95%CIs stratified by vaccination dose and age at vaccination. In case of significant heterogeneity (I2 > 50%), a random-effects model was applied. To explore statistical variation and heterogeneity between trials, pre-specified subgroup analyses were performed based on outcome (seroprotection), serological test, use of ART, study design, age at vaccination and time interval between vaccination and measurement of the serological response. Meta-regression was used to explore between-study variance not explained by the covariates and risk of publication bias was assessed using normal and contour-enhanced funnel plots if ten or more articles were included in the meta-analysis. Small study effects were evaluated using Egger’s-test for asymmetry. We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system for rating overall quality of evidence [31]. All analyses were performed using Stata, version 13 (StataCorpLP, Texas, USA). The study was prospectively registered in PROSPERO (CRD42017057411) [32]. The funder of the study had no role in study design, data collection, data analysis, data interpretation, or writing of the report. The corresponding author had full access to all the data in the study and all authors had final responsibility for the decision to submit for publication.

The provided text appears to be a detailed description of a systematic review and meta-analysis on the safety and immunogenicity of measles vaccination in HIV-infected and HIV-exposed uninfected children. It includes information on the search methods, inclusion criteria, data extraction, risk of bias assessment, statistical analyses, and funding. However, it does not directly address innovations or recommendations for improving access to maternal health. If you have any specific questions or need assistance with a different topic, please let me know.
AI Innovations Description
The provided text appears to be a description of a systematic review and meta-analysis conducted to evaluate the safety and immunogenicity of measles vaccination in HIV-infected and HIV-exposed uninfected (HEU) children. The study aimed to compare the seroresponse rates after measles vaccination in different groups of children and assess the impact of factors such as antiretroviral therapy and timing of vaccination.

The review included 71 studies involving 15,363 children. Vaccine-associated adverse events and deaths were found to be uncommon. HIV-infected children had lower seroresponse rates after primary vaccination compared to HIV-unexposed and HEU children. However, the use of antiretroviral therapy and the time interval between vaccination and serology helped mitigate this difference. HEU and HIV-unexposed children had similar seroresponse rates. Vaccination at 6 months of age showed similar seroresponse rates in HIV-infected children compared to HIV-unexposed and HEU children.

The authors concluded that primary measles vaccination at 6 months of age may provide protection against measles during early infancy in settings with a high prevalence of maternal HIV infection. However, further studies are needed to evaluate this strategy in HEU children and HIV-infected children receiving antiretroviral therapy.

The study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and searched multiple databases for relevant articles. Eligible studies reported on immunogenicity or safety of measles vaccination in HIV-infected or HEU children. The review assessed the risk of bias in included studies and performed meta-analyses to compare serological responses between different groups of children.

Overall, this systematic review and meta-analysis provide valuable insights into the safety and immunogenicity of measles vaccination in HIV-infected and HEU children, highlighting the importance of timing and antiretroviral therapy in optimizing vaccine response.
AI Innovations Methodology
The provided text appears to be a detailed description of the methodology used in a systematic review and meta-analysis on the safety and immunogenicity of measles vaccination in HIV-infected and HIV-exposed uninfected children. It outlines the steps taken to identify relevant studies, select eligible articles, extract data, assess risk of bias, and conduct statistical analyses.

To improve access to maternal health, here are some potential recommendations:

1. Mobile Clinics: Implement mobile clinics that can travel to remote areas or underserved communities to provide maternal health services, including prenatal care, vaccinations, and postnatal care.

2. Telemedicine: Utilize telemedicine technologies to provide remote consultations and monitoring for pregnant women, reducing the need for travel and increasing access to healthcare professionals.

3. Community Health Workers: Train and deploy community health workers who can provide basic maternal health services, education, and support in their local communities.

4. Maternal Health Vouchers: Introduce voucher programs that provide financial assistance to pregnant women, enabling them to access essential maternal health services at healthcare facilities.

5. Health Education Programs: Develop and implement health education programs that focus on maternal health, covering topics such as prenatal care, nutrition, breastfeeding, and family planning.

To simulate the impact of these recommendations on improving access to maternal health, a methodology could include the following steps:

1. Define the target population: Identify the specific population that would benefit from the recommendations, such as pregnant women in underserved areas or low-income communities.

2. Collect baseline data: Gather data on the current access to maternal health services in the target population, including factors such as distance to healthcare facilities, availability of healthcare providers, and utilization rates.

3. Model the interventions: Use modeling techniques, such as mathematical modeling or simulation software, to simulate the implementation of the recommended interventions. This can involve estimating the number of mobile clinics needed, the coverage of telemedicine services, the number of community health workers required, or the distribution of maternal health vouchers.

4. Assess the impact: Simulate the impact of the interventions on improving access to maternal health services. This can include measuring changes in the number of women receiving prenatal care, the percentage of women vaccinated against preventable diseases, or the reduction in maternal mortality rates.

5. Evaluate cost-effectiveness: Analyze the cost-effectiveness of the interventions by comparing the costs of implementation to the improvements in access to maternal health services. This can help prioritize interventions based on their potential impact and resource requirements.

6. Sensitivity analysis: Conduct sensitivity analyses to assess the robustness of the results and explore the potential impact of uncertainties or variations in key parameters.

7. Communicate findings: Present the findings of the simulation study to stakeholders, policymakers, and healthcare providers to inform decision-making and facilitate the implementation of effective interventions.

It is important to note that the specific methodology for simulating the impact of these recommendations may vary depending on the context, available data, and resources.

Share this:
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
WhatsApp
Email